One can only have impressions or opinions of it, and one cannot be proven wrong, because when talking about "talent" one is not talking about objective, measurable achievements.

I prefer achievements.

Click to expand...

Hoodjem, I hear you but consider that it might actually be the more difficult achievement to become #1. There are four chances for all the players to win a major each year, but how many players have a good chance to become 'the #1 BEST player in the world'? #1 is an amazing achievement. I think Rios should be considered for the Hall of Fame someday too. He was a special player.

Mental toughness is abstract; not a talent, that killers make concrete.*

Oh, shining star, I think that's what you're trying to say. I prefer human beings to achievement, anything else just gets repetitive after awhile. So big fart in the sky, Roger Federer won one or two more slams...duh, duh, duh, I'm not hearing it...than Sergi Bruguera. All that can be done, to keep a turnover P'zone alive. Look at the recent success of Matte Barnes...I prefer to be keepin' it real, tryin' to maximize the individual than harp on the distance of ever changin' persuasions. Talent is real, for his gen, he did much with his height; but like my other idol in life, not quite all the way applied. Know your type tendencies, or else Matte Barnes is still a big fat ZERO. That's a definitive loser mentatlity if you ask me, to prefer killer austeres in concrete to part-Italian, Cinderfellon stories, made in lemonade, yo? It's time to get *charged up,* inside; because when people give up on people, former world #'s and be smug like they was virtually nothing, it makes me wanna ball up and cray baby, extinguish, right back where I belong, a regular ol' peon in a pod, reflective, contemplating fairy tale *'s in the sky. Rios was a "gift" to many (not me, never was my cup o' tea, didn't really quite see it), but still a gift. There's a difference in trying to take that away from somones, if it made you feel better inside. #1 in the whole entire world at that height in this day and age is not abstract...it's the *rest,* all that unrest, that he did not put to rest. But the super nova in the hands was always there. Two different directives, entirely. It's not easy to do. Even once, #1 in the world, it's not to be brushed off w. shimmering salt in the wound, so he failed. That does not make his achievement of #1 planetary, any more human. Like you & me, hade he learned to appreciate more, maybe, may be...before it's really too late.

Click to expand...

Clairharmony = intriguing eccentric individual. Can you please answer these questions?
Best tennis moment:
Favorite players to watch:
Racquet you play with:
Most memorable matches:
Favorite tennis books:
How did you start playing tennis:
Shoes you play in:

Anyway Joyce played all three players just twice. And versus Agassi he barely won a couple of games , more or less.

Anyway Rios was very talented. Also other players can be judged more talented than the overall better two. Korda, for example. Maybe not, maybe yes, not a big deal.

But I do not think that playing twice with them will tell you more than watching then playing 500 matches.

Click to expand...

Exactly Cristiano, Rios was so talented he actually invented a new shot for tennis. How many players have done that? Agassi and Sampras played tennis more like machines while Rios was an artist.

Joyce's perspective and opinions about Rios are as credible and valuable as any. And he's not the only player to suggest Rios was the most talented, also in the book Florent Serra said while he was playing Rios he was actually trying to watch him play at the same time because he was so impressed by his talent. I doubt anyone ever said that about Agassi or Sampras. And Serra played Rios in the very last pro event he ever played.

I get the feeling that when players make statements like this, theres always some kind of back story thats being left out.

I doubt Joyce played Rios more than he played Agassi and Sampras, but I bet he went into the matches with those guys expecting perfection and merely got both playing at their average, yet great level. And then maybe when he played Rios, Rios was playing out of his mind every time.

Well, Joyce also practiced a lot with Rios. I would say Agassi, Sampras and Rios all thought they were superior to Joyce and each beat him with their B games and B level intensity. I don't see why any of them would be ultra motivated to play Joyce, with all due respect to Joyce. Clearly, the talent of Rios impressed Joyce distinctly more.

Sampras had his troubles with certain players, like Bruguera, Ferreira, Korda, Santoro, Roddick, Haas. A lot of the top players have lesser players who for whatever reasons seem to play them much tougher than one would expect.